Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Circumcision is one of Judaism's most important laws and for
generations of faithful it has symbolized a Biblical covenant with God. But in Israel, more and more Jewish parents are saying no to the blade. "It's such a taboo in Israel and in Judaism," said
Gali, nursing her six-week-old son, about the decision not to have him
circumcised.

When I was a kid reading the Bible, I always found it to be inexplicable how the Jews would no sooner be saved by God than they would do something bound to piss Him off and land them in some nasty soup. Now that I am older and a bit more versed in the perversity of human nature, I merely wonder what the inevitable consequence of their willful disobedience is going to be.

The Bible - Old and New Testament are more then just a religion. It is History, good and bad examples, God revealing himself to us through the written word, Laws, Judgement, Acceptance, Prophecy, Hope, Insperation, etc, etc,.

When an atheist just comes along and dismisses it out of hand as being written by "goat herders", they are actually showing their ignorance. These days, ignorance abounds!

When I was a kid reading the Bible, I always found it to be inexplicable how the Jews would no sooner be saved by God than they would do something bound to piss Him off and land them in some nasty soup.

That's the point of many of the authors of the books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). If your goal, as a religious authority, is to get people to follow the Torah, then your writings will communicate the point that bad stuff will happen if you don't.

However, there's also the half-full/half-empty choice in how one views it. One can look at it in one of two ways:

Funny thing is, there is no evidence that anything humans do or have done has ever pissed off a god. So, those that fear this, well, they might as well fear infuriating the fairy in the way they place that tooth under the pillow.

Funny thing is, there is no evidence that anything humans do or have done has ever pissed off a god. So, those that fear this, well, they might as well fear infuriating the fairy in the way they place that tooth under the pillow.

Good, good. Now say something about guns and compensation, or perhaps threaten not to copulate with the commentors.

You will never be half the troll I am, but you're shaping up nicely for a mortal.

Funny thing is, there is no evidence that anything humans do or have done has ever pissed off a god. So, those that fear this, well, they might as well fear infuriating the fairy in the way they place that tooth under the pillow.

And yet there isn't a horde of mentally disturbed, socially autistic folks who use every opportunity to loudly clamor for the nonexistence of the tooth fairy.

Josh, there's evidence for the tooth fairy. After all, kids put teeth under pillows, and get money in exchange.

The problem atheists have with God is that, unlike the tooth fairy, for such a laughably fake sham legend, they still haven't figured out how He pulls the trick of raising the dead, saving nations, prophesying and transforming men.

I mean, it isn't like mommy is sneaking into Atheist Jr.'s bedroom at night and slipping the Resurrection under a pillow.

I've been saying for a long time that this Israel is not necessarily the Israel of the Old testiment or even the Israel of Revelations. Knee jerk support of it by Christians on a religious basis is misguided.

I've been saying for a long time that this Israel is not necessarily the Israel of the Old testiment

Yes, it is. All Jews alive today are descendents of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, or Levi. (Converts are a separate, complicated story.) Though there is some evidence that the Jews of India, Ethiopia, and elsewhere may be descended from some of the lost tribes -- but the jury's still out.

I've been saying for a long time that this Israel is not necessarily the Israel of the Old testiment or even the Israel of Revelations. Knee jerk support of it by Christians on a religious basis is misguided.

Note that I'm not trying to sell Dispensationalism; Israel and Christianity are quite plainly said to be enemies in the current state of affairs. And as I have been reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers for that other thread lately, I can't help but notice how extremely harshly the first and second century Church fathers spoke of Jews. I'd expect even Martin Luther to wince at it.

He is saying that the fact that many (most) jews rejected the Messiah doesn't mean they can't be saved (if) they embrace the new covenant.

Protestants in particular fall prey to proof-texting like this (using one marginally-related verse to prove a whole aspect of their theology, see "rapture"), since they've divorced themselves from the Church's theological Traditions.

Rather than question the possible meanings of one verse, I'll focus on the consistent teaching of the Church in this regard.

2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Stop treating Sacred Scripture as if it were a complete guide to the ins and outs of the Faith.

The Scriptures (especially St Paul's letters) were written for particular reasons, to solve problems specific to the groups he wrote to--they aren't and never were to be the ONLY guide for the Christian.

since I'm not limited to only defining my theology from verses cherry-picked out of someone else's mail.

Yet you seem oddly hesitant to demonstrate how I'm cherry-picking the passage, or "wresting" Paul's words.

As for someone else's mail, that argument is only applicable when there is something in the text that the sender and the recipient know about the recipient's circumstances, but the third party reader doesn't. This is not the case here. The verses are not talking about the recipient, but about natural Israel. The words are therefore equally true for us as they were for the Roman congregation.

"As for someone else's mail, that argument is only applicable when there is something in the text that the sender and the recipient know about the recipient's circumstances, but the third party reader doesn't."

I wasn't there when he wrote it, so I don't know what he was thinking or why he chose the words he did, and what those circumstances are.

That the words are true isn't in question--that they mean what you (or I, or anyone) think they mean is the issue.

That the words are true isn't in question--that they mean what you (or I, or anyone) think they mean is the issue.

That question we resolve just like in any text whatsoever. We follow the train of thought.

"a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved"

Ok, now we have a question to resolve. Which Israel is it that will be saved? We know that two different entities are called Israel: Natural Israel and spiritual Israel. So, we read further to see if there are clues.

"As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake"

Aha, now we know. Members of spiritual Israel are not enemies of God. So, we are only left with one option, natural Israel. Since there is no evidence in the text that the subject matter has changed in these few sentences, we conclude that Paul is saying that natural Israel will be saved.

IF they abide not in unbelief.Galatians 3:26-27, 29:"[26] For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.""[29] And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise."

Of course it isn't sufficient. As I already said, "Note that I'm not trying to sell Dispensationalism". Anyone who believes in Judaism is unequivocally sentenced to Hell according to the Bible.

Those verses in Galatians are addressing people in the present. Romans 11 is talking about the future. And it connects this future event with promises made to the Patriarchs: "for the sake of their forefathers". Therefore some of those promises still apply.

Really? Because it sure looks like they were addressed specifically to the Church in what is now Turkey.

It should be obvious that I meant present as in, when it was written. The "if" always applies. It's just that there is a group, Jews of a specific time in the future, than a "when" is also told in Romans 11.

It is good to hear that some Jews (and I know some personally) are questioning this atavistic, Bronze-age barbarism. May their "tribe" increase -- and perhaps eventually give up on their superiority complex and rejoin the human race.

Judaism is not one single, simple thing. It is a congeries of many disparate ingredients from unrelated sources, pasted together by various tribal groups beginning in pre-history. Genital mutilation does seem to have been thought up first among the Semitic peoples, but probably long before Abraham's little tribe singled itself out (in its own mind at least) as the number one kid on the block. As for his being "told by G-d" to do this, any number of people have been "told by God" to do any number of things, all this conversation, conveniently, going on in their own heads, so there's no way for anyone else to tell just who was talking, after all.

Given what the Jews (nearly all of them, anyway, including even the least "observant") stubbornly insist on doing to their own children (but only their male children, be it noted -- as Rich Zubaty, who like me was married to a Jewish woman, points out in What Men Know That Women Don't, despite what you may hear, Judaism is decidedly a Matriarchal religion/culture) it is perhaps not so surprising what they have suffered as a group. And they criticize other ancient tribes for their practices of child sacrifice…

It's a blood ritual for a primitive tribal god who loves blood -- human blood, and pain. This "god" is still around, in various guises. As ye sow….

I've been saying for a long time that this Israel is not necessarily the Israel of the Old testiment or even the Israel of Revelations. Knee jerk support of it by Christians on a religious basis is misguided.

Professor Hale

given that the State of Israel is largely a clone of progressive/feminist america, knee-jerk support is ridiculous

we are not biblically instructed to support iniquity and matriarchy in any nation

both the OT and NT make clear that God wants us "circumcised in our hearts" and the overt signs/rites are of far less import, that was Jesus' main point

circumcision was introduced to the tribes for specific (and varied) reasons, for a specific period and place, largely as token of separation from surrounding peoples (whose "religion," like today, consisted largely of sexual cultism)

the issue is complex, but hebrews should not be disallowed from performing circumcision -- in other areas, however, the procedure is not administered to respect our God, but to subjugate boys, enrich doctors and hospitals, and provide skin-lotion to empowered, entitled western monstresses, like Oprah, who sells circ fibroblasts to her jezebel followers

God does not approve of, nor want, such procedures when carried out for evil human purpose, not to honor him

when the bible talks about "israel" or "zion" or "jerusalem" it sometimes means the ancient tribes (physical/historical israel) and sometimes means "spiritual israel" or what the NT calls the (inner) Church . . . obviously, consisting of more than State of Israel residents

how do you know the difference? if he's in your heart, you'll know, otherwise you'll flounder around

Then again, it's not like Christians are doing any better, slaughtering our own babies on the alter for riches, or "freedom", or some crazy shit. Yeah, I'll crawl back into my hole and quiet my pie hole. It's a gas, funny as hell, right until it isn't.

Deuteronomy 4:2: "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."

Isn't adding a whole "new testament" doing exactly that?

And what do Christians think about the fact that the Torah was given to a specific people and not anyone else? When God is using the second person, he is not talking to non-Jews today. Yet Christians interpret it as though he is speaking to them.

That "its not the real Israel" stuff kills me. Its the right people on the right piece of real estate. Look into how many "good" people could have saved Soddom. There's enough good Jews to count... Having said that, looking at Revelations tied into Zecharia, two thirds of them are going to get cooked. In the mean time don't screw around with Jerusalem (which we're doing, and probably shouldn't).

Benjamin Netanyahu's stint as prime minister and finance minister the first time around eliminated, for the most part, the socialist history of Israel. Now it's very capitalist and globalized to the extent that Tel Aviv is known as the Silicon Valley of the Middle East. And personally, I like the laws that mandate company pensions for all employees and social safety nets. So-called "socialism" is not always bad. It's a good combination of capitalism and socialism here.

And as far as feminism: Tell that to an old, secular boss of mine who told me to disregard all female applicants for a secretary position because they "get sick and have babies." Tell that to ultra-Orthodox women who are often, but not always, seen merely as baby-makers and upon whom it is bad even to look upon while they pass by on the street. Tell that to the "arsim" (the Israeli version of "Jersey Shore") who treat women like crap because they think that's what "real men" do.

I could go on and on. Israeli is a very complicated, though tiny, country. It is impossible to generalize it in any way -- from any side of the political or religious spectrum. The longer you live here, the more confusing it gets.

Personally, I don't find the whole "UN created Israel" thing to matter one whit. If God knew enough about the future to decide what happens/know what happens, then He would know how "future" Israel came to be and either decided it didn't matter or it worked out the way He wanted it to. I doubt He'd even care to explain it when giving out prophesies.

"Hey, listen, John. When I talk about Israel as in the future, jot down something about how the U.N. actually 'created' it to distinguish it from current Israel."

Whether or not modern "Jews" are truly descendents of Biblical Jews, I'll leave for others to discuss. But what's always perplexed me is the idea that modern Jews are from the same stock of men like David & Josiah. This is especially true of the whiny little pesky pain-in-the-ass East Coast Jews in the US.

But what's always perplexed me is the idea that modern Jews are from the same stock of men like David & Josiah. This is especially true of the whiny little pesky pain-in-the-ass East Coast Jews in the US.

Fair point. I'd recommend contrasting native, born-and-raised Israelis with Ashkenazi Jews in the United States. Israelis Jews do not take sh-t and are blunt and aggressive. For Ashkenazi Jews in the US -- take David and Josiah and put them through 2,000 years of persecution in Europe and Russia. You'd end up with a bunch of insecure, fearful, anxious Woody Allens.

And, personally, I hate that mentality. You insult an Israeli, he'll attack you. You insult Woody Allen, he'll make a timid joke and walk away so you don't attach him further.

Sam Scott November 28, 2012 4:51 PM Now it's very capitalist and globalized to the extent that Tel Aviv is known as the Silicon Valley of the Middle East. And personally, I like the laws that mandate company pensions for all employees and social safety nets. So-called "socialism" is not always bad. It's a good combination of capitalism and socialism here.

I could go on and on. Israeli is a very complicated, though tiny, country. It is impossible to generalize it in any way -- from any side of the political or religious spectrum.

Sam, in your opinion, would Israel be able to provide all that comfy socialism, and be able to survive, without the influx of aid from the U.S.?

Heh, God didn't permanently abandon them, that is the point. They have had consequences for their sin and rejection, but He still waits for their repentance and return.

Markku, very accurate. God is not done with the Jewish people, whatever some claim. You have to take the entirety of the Scriptures to build a case, not just the ones that make the case you want.

I am not at all surprised that the early Church fathers were anti-Jewish at some point. It is sad, since they reject the Scriptures, but it is not surprising. The Jewish leaders were very hostile to the early Church, leading to a negative alternate response. That varied from Jesus command, but human nature is still human nature.

I have listened through the book of Acts several times and each time I am amazed at the hostility the Christians faced from the Jewish leaders. This was often triggered out of jealousy as well. Quite human, but sad nonetheless.

Which Calvin opposed. He wanted him killed, yes, but petitioned the council that it would be done in a more humane way.

He vowed to ensnare him and not let him leave Geneva alive.

Quibbling over whether it was to be by fire or beheading (or whatever "humane" method he advocated - I honestly don't remember) wasn't much different than casting lots for the clothes of a condemned man. Someone other than the owner was going home in new duds.

Servetus wouldn't have been in front of the Council had Calvin not set the man in his sights long before.

Calvin killed Servetus as much as Caiaphas killed Jesus.

Now, whether or not Calvin was justified in his ambition or not is a different question.

Sam, it's the Jews who added to God's commands with their so-called "Oral Torah".

You might say that it was God, not men, who did the adding, which is exactly what I would say of the New Testament.

It's a complex issue; I'll try to summarize. I have my own thoughts about the Talmud, but first I'll give the Orthodox Jewish opinion:

First, God gave both the Written and Oral Law to Moses at Sinai. Moses passed the Oral Law to the priests, who passed it to the prophets, who passed it to the rabbis, who pass it along in unbroken tradition to everyone today.

Second, the Talmud's not viewed as "adding" to the Torah; it's viewed as "interpreting" the Law to new contexts. One example: The Torah prohibits lighting a fire on Shabbat. When electricity was invented, the rabbis had to decide whether flipping a light switch was like lighting a fire. They said yes, and so that was added to the Talmud.

Personally, I think the Talmud comes from Man and not God. There are so many reasons (that I won't elucidate here) that do not pass the "smell test." (Like God told Moses what to do about electricity thousands of years later?) But my opinion is not the "official" opinion of Orthodox Judaism.

Quibbling over whether it was to be by fire or beheading (or whatever "humane" method he advocated - I honestly don't remember) wasn't much different than casting lots for the clothes of a condemned man

Then why not make the correct accusation of Calvin wanting Servetus killed? Why always "burned at the stake", if even you know it isn't true?

Whatever that figure would be, the government could adjust. Raising taxes there, cutting spending here, and so on. There are Israeli arguments in favor of refusing foreign aid, and I'm personally torn on that issue.

Deuteronomy 4:2: "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."

Isn't adding a whole "new testament" doing exactly that?

And what do Christians think about the fact that the Torah was given to a specific people and not anyone else? When God is using the second person, he is not talking to non-Jews today. Yet Christians interpret it as though he is speaking to them. Sam Scott

Have you read the Gospels? The "New Testament" is not an addition to the Torah, it is a demonstration of the fulfillment of the redemption promises in the Torah. Christians know who the Torah was given to and have no qualms about it.

What do Jews think about the fact that when the Law Tablets, written by God, were brought down from the mountain, Moses smashed them to bits?

My Jewish study Bible says of that: Smashing them was not simple anger, but a legal ceremony to confirm breach of treaty

God was angry enough to destroy all the people and choose another group. Moses interceded, another set of tablets was created, and put in the ark that Moses made.

If you think this disctinction is important, then you should notice that your challenge was begging the question: It assumes that New Testament comes from man. But if it does, it is already refuted at that point. No need to appeal to Deuteronomy.

Then why not make the correct accusation of Calvin wanting Servetus killed? Why always "burned at the stake", if even you know it isn't true?

I never made such an accusation. I never wrote that Calvin wanted Servetus "burned at the stake."

I said Calvinists did.

The fact that Calvin incited the execution and then (quite late) complained about the method after sentencing is notable, and I don't deny it. In fact, I only did exactly what you request: offer that "Calvin wanted Servetus killed."

Sam, the lightswitch thing looks like a perfect example of "adding to what God has commanded."

My mistake -- I was not clear. Let me rephrase.

In Orthodox Jewish thought, Moses received "the Torah." And "the Torah" was (and is) comprised of two parts: the Written Law and the Oral Law.

The Written Law: It is forbidden to light a fire on Shabbat. This is in the text.

The Oral Law: God essentially told Moses that when electricity is invented in 5,000 years, it will be forbidden to flip a light-switch on Shabbat. This was passed down to the rabbis of today as I described above.

So, in Orthodox thought, the rabbis are not adding to the Law when they say that flipping the switch is forbidden. They are just repeating the instructions that Moses had received.

Again, this is not what I personally believe. I'm just stating what Orthodox Judaism teaches. Hope that clarifies the issue!

Come to think of it, I would expect the charge of "subtracting" rather than "adding" to be levelled at the NT, since Christians don't keep kosher and all.

Yeah, that was my main point. I just laugh when Christians cite a verse from the Hebrew Bible to say that people should do something when they ignore other verses there that say they shouldn't eat bacon. Intellectual consistency, anyone? :) It's instructions for we Jews, not you. LOL.

Deuteronomy 4:2: 'Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.'

Isn't adding a whole 'new testament' doing exactly that?"

Strictly speaking, Christians believe that it was not mere man that added to or subtracted from what God said. Which is why we take canons very seriously (you as a Jew should be familiar with this strict care for ensuring that canon = either God-inspired or literally spoken from the mouth of God). We Christians believe that the New Testament was written by men moved by the Holy Spirit (or the "Spirit of God" in Jew-speak :P).

Granted, we do not make a spiritual distinction between Torah and non-Torah Scripture, but then again, having a Messiah that fulfilled the Law on your behalf helps you not worry so much about Law vs non-Law theology.

Sam Scott wrote:"And what do Christians think about the fact that the Torah was given to a specific people and not anyone else? When God is using the second person, he is not talking to non-Jews today. Yet Christians interpret it as though he is speaking to them."

In the light of the NT, it is often considered that prophecies and messages in the OT often had multiple (usually double) overlapping scopes. One scope would deal with people of the time in which the message was directly addressed, and the other scope would refer to a broader or more contemporary audience. Some classic examples include the prophecies that some of the apostles treated as referring to both David and Jesus Christ simultaneously (i.e. "the scepter will not depart from Judah").

Yeah, that was my main point. I just laugh when Christians cite a verse from the Hebrew Bible to say that people should do something when they ignore other verses there that say they shouldn't eat bacon. Intellectual consistency, anyone? :) It's instructions for we Jews, not you. LOL.

On occasion it is indeed inconsistent. Like condemning homosexual acts because of the Old Testament, when that case should be made by referring to Paul's condemnation of it if you are a Christian. Otherwise it could have applied only to the Jews, like the dietary laws.

However, at other times the Old Testament text is speaking simply about, say, what God hates, with no reference to Israel at all. Then it is consistent to apply it to everyone.

Sam Scott wrote:"Are people interested when I clarify issues from an Israeli and/or Jewish point of view? I just don't want to waste everyone's time if I'm boring people. :)"

It's definitely interesting. I am of Jewish lineage, so I'm fascinated by matters relating to my heritage, although I disagree with the religious aspect of it. That said, I do still find Judaism to provide the occasional gem of wisdom (thanks Rabbis) which assist me in my own theological understanding (e.g. my views on the spiritual significance of sex as it relates to marriage has been inspired by Jewish thought - well, I should say by Scripture, but reinforced by Rabbinical writings).

That said, I do still find Judaism to provide the occasional gem of wisdom (thanks Rabbis) which assist me in my own theological understanding (e.g. my views on the spiritual significance of sex as it relates to marriage has been inspired by Jewish thought

I'd highly recommend you read the new English translation of the Zohar by Daniel Matt. (The source text for the Kabbalah minus the Madonna crap.) Very trippy stuff -- God as both male and female and how the male/female union in marriage emulates that fact and how Israel is the feminine that unites with God as masculine as well.

Hold on, Sam. I thought the Talmud had been written down for over a thousand years. If there's a copy from before Thomas Edison's birth that talks about lightswitches I'll go out and buy a yamulke right now.

Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude the Orthodox rabbis have been lying to the Jews by putting their own commands in God's mouth all this time, which is definitely "adding to God's commands."

Hold on, Sam. I thought the Talmud had been written down for over a thousand years. If there's a copy from before Thomas Edison's birth that talks about lightswitches I'll go out and buy a yamulke right now.

Again, fair point. Let me clarify:

The printed text that is known as the Talmud (in book form) was what was codified in the first couple of centuries CE. It includes rabbinical debates and rulings up until that time. If you buy the "Talmud" volumes today, that is what you will get.

However, there have been additional rulings ever since up until the present day (like about light-switches). They are codified in other, newer texts like the Shulchan Aruch and whatnot. Give it another 2,000 years, and that'll be codified in some official Talmudic compendium as well. The Talmud is ever-changing, evolving, and growing. It's not some static text like the Hebrew or Christian Bibles.

Nutshell: There are new "rulings" every year, and they'll be collected in a single collection some day.

No shit, Vox, that is so true about the Jews not learning. If I had a pillar of fire leading me across the desert, and sending me manna when I get hungry, well, I don't care how bad things got, I wouldn't EVER pull out that golden calf again!

How can there be debates and rulings if there's already a command straight from Moses? And if there is no such command, why say there is?

Exactly! And that's why I don't agree with the party line of Orthodox Judaism personally. It just doesn't make sense to me logically. I can only tell you what Orthodox Judaism says. I cannot argue in favor of it when I don't believe it myself. :) So, I guess I don't have an answer to you're question.

When there are rabbinical debates, they said (and say) that whatever is the majority opinion is what comes from Moses. If 51% of the rabbis say that flipping a light-switch is wrong and 48% say it's OK, then the majority rule and that is deemed as coming from Moses, Sinai, and God.

Krul - The Majority rule thing with the Rabbis is a little weird to me as well. There is a story in the Talmud where God actually intervenes through miracles to bolster the case of the minority Rabbi and the group still went with the majority. The point was that God handed us a law and a process to interpret it. We have to adhere to the process, even if it is wrong. I am not saying that I agree with this, but that is the Orthodox opinion.

Chedderman - It is too bad that we don't have a modern day Daniel or Joseph as principled and gifted administrators running the U.S. from behind the throne.

Have you read the story of Joseph in Genesis? Really, go and read it. I am not so sure you will think that Joseph was a fair and wise leader. He basically used the famine crisis to relegate all of the Egyptian people to serfdom. Daniel, I would take however.

JI - If I had a pillar of fire leading me across the desert, and sending me manna when I get hungry, well, I don't care how bad things got, I wouldn't EVER pull out that golden calf again!

Don't be so sure how you would have reacted. Clearly the Hebrews were not convinced. Even though God could perform miracles, he might still abandon them. I think the only rational explanation is that they thought they were doing the right thing.... not that they were rebelling. It is a scary thought. None of us really believe we are rebelling... generally we all think we are doing the right thing. I am always wary of anyone who is sure they are a good person.

Sam Scott, you are dangerously close to being branded a heretic for your assertion that the oral law is man made.

For example, you assert that the majority opinion always wins. That isn't true because sometimes a voice of God intervenes to give overwhelming credibility to the minority opinion. This contradicts your rationale for a man made oral law.

"On occasion it is indeed inconsistent. Like condemning homosexual acts because of the Old Testament, when that case should be made by referring to Paul's condemnation of it if you are a Christian. Otherwise it could have applied only to the Jews, like the dietary laws."

While I agree that sometimes Christians pick and choose, I don't think this is a good example. All of the moral commands in the OT law that weren't elaborated upon by Jesus or the other NT writers are still valid - God's moral standard about things like adultery, murder, idol worship, and so on haven't changed a bit (if anything, as the Sermon On The Mount suggests, Jesus holds people to a higher moral standard!) Homosexuality is encompassed here.

Ritual purity codes like not eating certain types of food, cutting your beard, and not making clothes from two types of fabric are not commands about what God finds right and wrong, but related to Israel's obedience in temple/tabernacle worship that quite obviously don't apply to Christians.

All of the moral commands in the OT law that weren't elaborated upon by Jesus or the other NT writers are still valid

You don't find this distinction in the text. It is just a name that we have given to those commands that we think are valid. If Paul hadn't actually said that homosexual acts are still forbidden, I think it would be extremely difficult to make the case that it isn't just about ritual purity.

I read this site, as Low-IQ as I am (I think... never tested.... I don't care..... I have God's discernment all up in me...... for the same reason I would rather play chess with a grandmaster than someone at my level of skill.)

I LOL'ed many times. Who needs TV? I've got the Peanut Galleries at VD, Althouse, Volokh, and, at the same time, other sites which make ME feel like I'm intelligent.

So you're a....protestant (of sorts)? Markku will probably be willing to supply the parchment, hammer, and nails if you have a few complaints that you'd like to nail to the door of your local synagogue...

At any rate, keep the comments coming. It is an interesting perspective that adds to the discussions here.

"God was angry enough to destroy all the people and choose another group."

Do you suppose it's possible that this actually happened a couple of times to a few other unlucky groups, before God finally settled on the Israelites? We'd never hear about it, because they'd all be glass, or salt or something.

Since the twice-a-day shower seems to be a popular pastime, why is circumcision necessary? Since food inspection is the law of most civilized lands, why is it necessary to be kosher? Sheesh, so many of us are such slow learners.

What bothers me now is the popularity of tattoos. Don't people realize that clear skin indicates sexual desirability? Beauty marks or patches were worn in the old days to point up surrounding clear skin. But at least the patches could be changed. Is it a smart idea to be stuck with one tattoo forever?

I'm just a freakin' dishwasher. A Career Dishwasher. Executive Dishwasher. I just tried to tune my guitar, so I could play Were You There, which I linked above. Brand new strings. Just re-stringed it Monday. Got pissed because it kept going out of tune and tried snapping the strings like Flea on Crack. Broke one. Nearly threw my guitar spear-style at the wall. Then listened to, at 50/50 volume, in this order: AP2 Heroin Hate, Eric B. & Rakim Follow the Leader, and then capped my disturbing-of-the-neighborhood off with all three movements of Rachmaninoff's P.C. #2

I am thankful that I.Q. isn't a prerequisite for salvation. More than you can imagine.

And all the prophecies regarding Jerusalem in the end? The splitting of Mount Olivet in two? (which has yet to happen, but who knows what an Iranian nuke could do...or God with quakes, for that matter...)

Israel, specifically Jerusalem, seems to be the center, even now.

"There seems no plan, because it's all plan. There seems no center, because it's all center." - C.S. Lewis

And all the prophecies regarding Jerusalem in the end? The splitting of Mount Olivet in two? (which has yet to happen, but who knows what an Iranian nuke could do...or God with quakes, for that matter...)

Maybe... if you subscribe to dispensationalism, to which I do not. This chart, from my Lutheran Study Bible, explains Revelation from my perspective.

Don't worry, you are going to die one way or another, the rapture is the cheap way out, it is bullshit because every one you will die before the so called non existent rapture. They died right here and you will too.

Ever been to a funeral? I have many times with many family and many friends and have carried five People to the grave from my father and grandparents to my best friend. Soon I will be carried. Stop the nonsense, Christians are getting as bad as the Mayan believers. Death is certain and you will not fly away from it.

People are so afraid of dying they make stuff up. I am sick of it I have buried too many people. Go on and believe that Jesus is on the door step and going to fly you away, fools, the second resurrection happens at the grave. Read Isiah 14.

Sam:When there are rabbinical debates, they said (and say) that whatever is the majority opinion is what comes from Moses. If 51% of the rabbis say that flipping a light-switch is wrong and 48% say it's OK, then the majority rule and that is deemed as coming from Moses, Sinai, and God.

Chelm:The Majority rule thing with the Rabbis is a little weird to me as well. There is a story in the Talmud where God actually intervenes through miracles to bolster the case of the minority Rabbi and the group still went with the majority. The point was that God handed us a law and a process to interpret it. We have to adhere to the process, even if it is wrong. I am not saying that I agree with this, but that is the Orthodox opinion.

POJ:For example, you assert that the majority opinion always wins. That isn't true because sometimes a voice of God intervenes to give overwhelming credibility to the minority opinion. This contradicts your rationale for a man made oral law.

Interesting - there seems to be a disagreement on rabbinic practice. In the case were God is on the side of the minority, Chelm claim the rabbis would still go with the majority, while POJ claims the rabbis would go with the voice of God and the minority.

It's an interesting distinction. If Chelm is right, then the rabbis' authority exceeds God's authority regarding law. But this doesn't seem to make sense - if the rabbis' authority came from God in the first place (Moses, Sinai) then how can it possibly supersede God's authority?

If POJ is correct, then the rabbis' role is not to create, but to convey God's laws to the Jewish people. In this case, the authority of the rabbis is the result of their special relationship with God, in that they are able to perceive His will concerning things that are absent from the written Torah.

Who is correct? We need another Jew to weigh in. We'll go with the majority opinion, I think.

Chelm:Have you read the story of Joseph in Genesis? Really, go and read it. I am not so sure you will think that Joseph was a fair and wise leader. He basically used the famine crisis to relegate all of the Egyptian people to serfdom.

Yes, I had noticed this before. I wonder if this is the reason for the Hebrews' later subjugation by the Egyptians recorded in the book of Exodus.

The nation state that calls itself, "Israel" is not God's Israel. The church is Israel.

Its not that simple.

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=45&c=11&com=mhc

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

Chapter Contents

The rejection of the Jews is not universal. (1-10) God overruled their unbelief for making the Gentiles partakers of gospel privileges. (11-21) The Gentiles cautioned against pride and unbelief, The Jews shall be called as a nation, and brought into God's visible covenant again. (22-32) A solemn adoring of the wisdom, goodness, and justice of God. (33-36)

Paul says in Romans 11:

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches ; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

And to all people who see unpleasant news and cry End Times. Imagine being in Northern France in WWI, a Jew being dragged from Holland to a German camp in WWII, seeing the butchery of Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

Now are you still going to tell me that the crap we're going through is an indication of the end times? We haven't seen nothing.

It is foolish to continue conflating the Khazakhs squatting in Palestine with the Hebrews of the Old Testament, which is a political subterfuge that has little to nothing to do with Biblical, spiritual matters.If you can't figure this out from the blatant atheism, spiritualism & leftism of the banKhazars running America into the ground, I can't do your thinking for you:At some point, you have to start doing Biblical research and rejecting the idolatrous heresies of Vaticanism, or follow the rest of the lemmings over the cliff.

So circumcision is a "symbol of the covenenent." And making food safer to eat is based on some ancient, less scientific ideas from came from people in the past. (The only direct orders that are said to come from God are the Ten Commandments.)

It seems to me that technological progress keeps accelerating while old-time religion becomes less relevant. And that includes all religions!

Chelm: Have you read the story of Joseph in Genesis? Really, go and read it. I am not so sure you will think that Joseph was a fair and wise leader. He basically used the famine crisis to relegate all of the Egyptian people to serfdom.

Yes, I had noticed this before. I wonder if this is the reason for the Hebrews' later subjugation by the Egyptians recorded in the book of Exodus."

I just finished reading it this morning. The way the story comes across to me is that the famine was so bad that events had to play out as they did in order to preserve as many lives as possible. There literally wasn't an alternative.

Also, it wasn't serfdom but outright slavery. The Egyptians were happy to ultimately sell themselves into slavery in order to live another day just as they were compelled by hunger to give all their money, sell their livestock and sell their land. That Pharaoh didn't set them free at some point in the future wasn't Joseph's fault. Joseph was doing exactly what God told him to do.

One of the things that stood out to me was how much Pharaoh charged the people to live on his newly purchased land. It was one fifth of their harvest, or 20%. When the 12 tribes received the law and statutes the amount asked by God for the maintenance of the priests and Levites was one tenth, or 10%, half of what Pharaoh required.

When there are rabbinical debates, they said (and say) that whatever is the majority opinion is what comes from Moses. If 51% of the rabbis say that flipping a light-switch is wrong and 48% say it's OK, then the majority rule and that is deemed as coming from Moses, Sinai, and God.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Beau - But I wonder if Joseph could've yielded a freer outcome for the benefit of both the Egyptians and his own family?

It was the ancient (pre classical) world so probably not. Deeper explanation below.

Krul Yes, I had noticed this before. I wonder if this is the reason for the Hebrews' later subjugation by the Egyptians recorded in the book of Exodus.

Yes, I think you are right. But not the only reason (Pharaoh gives his reason straight out)

Also, this is one of those cases where the original Hebrew text is way more illustrative than the translations. I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I know the basics. I may be getting this wrong (someone with more Hebrew knowledge may have a better answer) but the same Hebrew word (Eved) is sometimes translated as "servant" and sometimes as "slave". In a society based on the concept of fealty there isn't really much of a distinction.

When the egyptians become "eved" to Pharaoh, it is usually translated as servant. When the Hebrews become "eved" to Pharaoh it is translated as slave. The Hebrews were exempt from the original arrangement because they had Joseph to feed them. It is also true that the terms of their slavery was way more harsh than that of the Egyptians. So there is some distinction there, but I always found it interesting that it was the same word but translated very differently.

I think that embedded in the story is a warning of the unchecked power of kings, which gets lost in translation. This is not inconsistent with the Biblical outlook on kingship as expressed in later books.

E. PERLINE - So circumcision is a "symbol of the covenenent." And making food safer to eat is based on some ancient, less scientific ideas from came from people in the past. (The only direct orders that are said to come from God are the Ten Commandments.)

It seems to me that technological progress keeps accelerating while old-time religion becomes less relevant. And that includes all religions!

The idea that there is a rational basis for God's commandments is a middle ages one. Prior to that understanding of why the commandments were given was never considered a prerequisite for following them. Many are indeed arbitrary not rationally justifiable, such as the commandment to separate wool and linen. Modern orthodoxy sees no distinction between commandments we understand the purpose of and those we don't.

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;27 For this is My covenant with them,When I take away their sins.

As the church is people not a place, so, too, Israel is a people not a georaphical piece of land. God’s promise of land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) “from the river in Egypt to the Euphrates river” was conditional on Israel’s obedience to the covenant. God said that land was His and the Hebrews could live there if they obeyed.

That said, I do not understand Paul’s writing above. By ‘all Israel’ does he mean every Jew who ever lived from Jesus’ time unto the end of the world?

"When I was a kid reading the Bible, I always found it to be inexplicable how the Jews would no sooner be saved by God than they would do something bound to piss Him off and land them in some nasty soup. Now that I am older and a bit more versed in the perversity of human nature, I merely wonder what the inevitable consequence of their willful disobedience is going to be."

I've been reading Judges and it's worth noting the pattern of Israel falling into sin, God punishing them by allowing their neighbors to conquer and oppress them, the Israelites repenting and calling out to God, God appointing a judge to rescue them, Israel returning to God only for the generation that experienced God's rescue, their children then falling away. Look up how many accounts of the judges that end with a variation of "and the land had rest for 40 years". Then the story of the next judge begins with a variation of "the Israelites did evil in the sight of the Lord; they forgot the Lord their God and worshiped the Baals and the Asherahs".

When a angel sinned, he was banished to hell (Lucifer) because angels have perfect knowledge and thus knew fully of Gods greatness, his love, his commands and the consequences of breaking his commands. When man sins, forgiveness is always possible because man has imperfect knowledge of God (yes .. even VD).

Several days ago (maybe more .. it hard to keep tract of time in the asylum) there were discussion as to why God chose to reveal himself in such vague manner -- why does't Jesus come now, perform some miracles on TV in HD in from of the whole world .. da da da... Well to avoid the trap of perfect knowledge and to preserve free will there is always an element of faith .... or else hell would be filled with people guilty of willful disobedience with no chance of forgiveness.

.....I'd recommend contrasting native, born-and-raised Israelis with Ashkenazi Jews in the United States. Israelis Jews do not take sh-t and are blunt and aggressive.......

Had a great time about a decade ago having dinner with 2 native born Israeli biotech entrepreneurs, 2 Iranian-born shite-muslim surgeons(both practicing in the US), a Catholic, and 2 Protestant distributors. All of us getting along while dining at a Persian restaurant. I spent most of the night discussing krav maga and why the Jews never took Arafat out with one of the Israeli`s. A fun guy to BS with. He didn't come across as one those pissy American Jews. However, by his own admission, he had absolutely no interest in his own country's religious faith or history. I found that very strange at the time. And going against the widely believed stereotype of Jews being penny-pinching misers, the Israelis picked up the tab for dinner.

Marvel at the stupidity and hypocrisy of a nation that flushes billion down the toilet to arm Israel to the teeth, then demands they make territorial concessions in the name of "the peace process" every time they are attacked!